1. Where did the support for the Republican party start in white male America?

2. How much of the sentiment is based purely on rhetoric as opposed to truth? How much is imbedded in actual history?

3. If the media, pop culture, or cultural differences unite Republicans with white male majorities, what can break that union? (Realistically, we're not talking about music, clothing, or other rhetorical rants...)

4. Is the support for Mr. Bush, and the current administration, a manifestation of the white male community's support for the GOP?

Google

Sponsored Links

Julian

Nov 19 2005, 12:49 PM

Ok, I'll bite....

1. Where did the support for the Republican party start in white male America?The Republican Party (like most political institutions in the USA & Europe, including the Democrat Party) was created by white males.

The support starts at the same time as the institution does.

2. How much of the sentiment is based purely on rhetoric as opposed to truth? How much is imbedded in actual history?

Modern party politics succeeds (and, eventually, fails) based on a particular type of media-savvy rhetoric - specifically, 'spin'.

Spin concentrates only on the surface of facts, plays to universal themes (family, security, fear, etc), does as little exposition as possible to avoid uncovering any complexities or contradictions, all the better to work well in a soundbite media culture where politicians and their instruments have, at best, 30 or so seconds to get across their messages.

It has to, because the majority of the electorate is simply not engaged enough with political discourse to be able to digest underlying policies and come to their own conclusions, and decide their political allegiances that way. If truth be told, this "classical" model of party politics is probably even more cynical and unreal than modern spin politics, since human beings almost always decide on issues they feel passionate about by first making the decision and THEN seeking out the evidence to support it, rather than the idealised reasoning process we all SAY we use (and usually do when we approach an issue with no preconceptions - usually only the ones we don't really care about).

In recent years, success in Western politics - especially in the US and UK - is directly proportional to aptitude in such media manipulation.

That the Republican Party has been so successful in this, especially among white males, indicates that most of their success (though probably not with the politically-engaged minority that visits sites like ) is reliant on rhetoric. And, perhaps sadly, the Democrats will only prosper once more when their grasp of spin exceeds that of the Republicans.

3. If the media, pop culture, or cultural differences unite Republicans with white male majorities, what can break that union? (Realistically, we're not talking about music, clothing, or other rhetorical rants...)It looks to me like the only thing that can separate spin-powered parties from their electoral support is a combination of inertia (the media, and public opinion, are not settled, but shift and veer like powedery snow in strong winds). Maintaining support is a constant process of tacking and veering, like sailing a boat. Sooner or later, most parties in power come to believe that their success stems from their own principles and opinions, and not those of the voters. That is when they risk becoming separate from their support, because they stop checking with it.

I don't think this is especially a Republican thing - the Democrats made much the same mistakes under Clinton, the Republicans under Reagan/Bush I.

Rolling 24-hour news coverage is mostly responsible for this change, I think, since it requires constant news, and the churn of stories. This means that modern politicians are almost obliged to have an immediate opinion on every news event, real or imagined. There is no time for consideration, and "it's too early to say" or "I don't know", while honest, don't really exude the confidence modern electorates expect to see in their rulers.

4. Is the support for Mr. Bush, and the current administration, a manifestation of the white male community's support for the GOP?

Spin does seem to work best on white males, it's true - they are the most likely to say things like "I don't do / have time for nuance" - so yes, I suppose so.

But the wider truth, is suspect, is that the political process in it's entirety engages best with white males. Which is a problem as they become an increasingly small minority When they were 100% of voters and 46% of the population, it was just about tenable. But those days are long gone.

The next BIG political innovation will be the one that somehow engages with the majority. Currently, most effort seems to go into fighting over the who gets the majority of the minority who take current party politics at all seriously. The majority care deeply about political issues, but don't really care about what passes for 'politics'.

So the country get run according to the whims of the minorities tha do - and currently, a big chunk of them are white males.

Wertz

Nov 19 2005, 07:02 PM

1. Where did the support for the Republican party start in white male America?

Historically, I'd say the Republican Party started becoming the White Male Party with Barry Goldwater's defeat of Nelson Rockefeller in the 1964 GOP primaries, with his "states' rights" platform echoing that of the Dixiecrats who emerged in the late 1940s in opposition to the Democrats' anti-segregation stance.

This marked a turning point in American politics in which the white supremacist elements of our country began turning away from the Democratic Party and started embracing the Republicans.

This change was solidified in 1968 with Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy". By running a campaign based on "states' rights" (i.e., opposition to civil rights) and "law and order" (i.e., filling our prisons with darker skin), Nixon managed to attract both racists and non-racist conservatives - and the transition of the Democratic Party of the Old South to that of the "liberal" party was complete. The GOP has been pandering to these elements (however covertly) ever since - just as the Democrats have been pandering to the minority vote.

2. How much of the sentiment is based purely on rhetoric as opposed to truth? How much is imbedded in actual history?

The Republican Party's pandering to the "white vote" is documented history. Whether it's as overt as opposition to bussing and desegregation (Nixon) or affirmative action and "racial quotas" (Reagan) or as subliminable as Willie Horton ads (Bush I) or refusal to meet with the NAACP (Bush II), the signals are clear - to the target audience. In other words, Trent Lott's praise for the States Rights Democratic Party of Strom Thurmond was no accident. It was a calculated nod toward a constituency that the Republican Party is desperate to hang onto.

3. If the media, pop culture, or cultural differences unite Republicans with white male majorities, what can break that union? (Realistically, we're not talking about music, clothing, or other rhetorical rants...)

So long as race is a divisive issue in this country, nothing will break that union. The GOP will continue to cater to the lily white constituency, though it may become progressively more coded. However, so long as the Democratic Party remains the more "liberal" party, the racist elements of our country have little option but to support the GOP - and, hopefully, that party will have to spend less time appeasing them.

4. Is the support for Mr. Bush, and the current administration, a manifestation of the white male community's support for the GOP?

Yes.

Blackstone

Nov 20 2005, 01:16 AM

QUOTE(Wertz @ Nov 19 2005, 02:02 PM)

The Republican Party's pandering to the "white vote" is documented history. Whether it's as overt as opposition to bussing and desegregation (Nixon) or affirmative action and "racial quotas" (Reagan) or as subliminable as Willie Horton ads (Bush I) or refusal to meet with the NAACP (Bush II), the signals are clear - to the target audience.

Is the target audience white people, or simply conservatives? You seem to be suggesting that white people have some kind of interest in keeping black people down, instead of considering that maybe it's just that conservatives (white and black) have a different idea from liberals as to how to best govern society. If you insist on proceeding with your own assumption in exclusion of all other possibilities, then you're just as guilty as anyone for the "divisive" nature of the race issue that you bemoan in the next paragraph.

Wertz

Nov 20 2005, 08:18 AM

QUOTE(Blackstone @ Nov 19 2005, 08:16 PM)

QUOTE(Wertz @ Nov 19 2005, 02:02 PM)

The Republican Party's pandering to the "white vote" is documented history. Whether it's as overt as opposition to bussing and desegregation (Nixon) or affirmative action and "racial quotas" (Reagan) or as subliminable as Willie Horton ads (Bush I) or refusal to meet with the NAACP (Bush II), the signals are clear - to the target audience.

Is the target audience white people, or simply conservatives? You seem to be suggesting that white people have some kind of interest in keeping black people down, instead of considering that maybe it's just that conservatives (white and black) have a different idea from liberals as to how to best govern society. If you insist on proceeding with your own assumption in exclusion of all other possibilities, then you're just as guilty as anyone for the "divisive" nature of the race issue that you bemoan in the next paragraph.

No, the target is white people. I'm not by any means saying that conservatives are, by definition, racist. Nor am I claiming that the Republican Party is, by definition, racist. But, of the two major parties, the GOP is the choice of an overwhelming majority of racists (by which I mean white supremacist racists). And Republicans know it. Like the Christian right, it is a constituency that they need to maintain a majority. So they will do all they can to, at the very least, not alienate racists - while still trying to maintain a hold on a substantial portion of the right-leaning middle and those who are simply fiscal conservatives.

When Reagan stated his support of states' rights at Philadelphia, Mississippi (where three civil rights advocates had been murdered), it was no accident. When he praised Jefferson Davis at Stone Mountain, Georgia (where the Ku Klux Klan was founded), it was no accident. When Bob Dole or Alan Keyes or George W Bush campaigns at Bob Jones University, it is no accident. When Bush I ran the Willie Horton ad or Trent Lott said the country would be better off if the Dixiecrats had risen to power, it was no accident. It's like a nod and a wink or a secret handshake - and one that is recognized, not by conservatives in general, but by white racists.

Blackstone

Nov 20 2005, 06:18 PM

QUOTE(Wertz @ Nov 20 2005, 03:18 AM)

When Reagan stated his support of states' rights at Philadelphia, Mississippi (where three civil rights advocates had been murdered), it was no accident. When he praised Jefferson Davis at Stone Mountain, Georgia (where the Ku Klux Klan was founded), it was no accident. When Bob Dole or Alan Keyes or George W Bush campaigns at Bob Jones University, it is no accident. When Bush I ran the Willie Horton ad or Trent Lott said the country would be better off if the Dixiecrats had risen to power, it was no accident. It's like a nod and a wink or a secret handshake - and one that is recognized, not by conservatives in general, but by white racists.

That's considerably different from the evidence you were citing in the comment I was responding to. There, you were talking about support for states' rights, and opposition to forced busing and affirmative action, and implying that those who adhere to such positions do so out of racist motives.

Even if you weren't deliberately trying to imply that, it certainly came across that way, and so it still needs to be emphasized that support for these positions is not indicative of racism. Far more likely, it's indicative only of a desire to limit the power and scope of government.

Wertz

Nov 21 2005, 12:35 AM

QUOTE(Blackstone @ Nov 20 2005, 01:18 PM)

That's considerably different from the evidence you were citing in the comment I was responding to. There, you were talking about support for states' rights, and opposition to forced busing and affirmative action, and implying that those who adhere to such positions do so out of racist motives.

Many do. Indeed, at the time of Nixon, many millions did. The amount of white bigotry may have declined somewhat in the intervening years. But not much.

QUOTE

Even if you weren't deliberately trying to imply that, it certainly came across that way, and so it still needs to be emphasized that support for these positions is not indicative of racism. Far more likely, it's indicative only of a desire to limit the power and scope of government.

For you, perhaps. Of course it is possible to oppose affirmative action for reasons other than "I don't want to work alongside blacks" or "I don't want to have to hire blacks" (though, frankly, I don't find many of them convincing). The same goes for desegregation of schools and the busing issue. But a majority of those opposed to busing at the time it was first proposed - and I was there - were opposed to it because they didn't want their kids in classes with negroes, period.

Granted, "states' rights" as a concept has evolved somewhat from how it was originally employed. At the time of Strom Turmond and the Dixiecrats, it meant one thing and one thing only: the right to segregate and discriminate.

But you must also bear in mind that while you may be opposed to desegregation or affirmative action for the purest of small government reasons, there are many - many, many - for whom affirmative action still means "unqualified blacks taking my job", for whom integration still means "forcing my kids to mingle with coloreds" - for whom, in short, these issues are a matter of racism. And those people are not going to vote for Democrats - at least not so long as the GOP continues embracing such "small government" issues.

As I said at the outset, not all Republicans or all conservatives are racist bigots by any means. That would be an absurd and indefensible position. But an overwhelming majority of racist bigots are conservtive Republicans. Similarly, not all people whoa re, say, opposed to affirmative action are racist bigots, either. But, again, an overwhelming majority of racist bigots are opposed to affirmative action. The fact remains that the positions of white racists happen to coincide with the positions of the GOP, especially when it comes to racial issues - even if it is for differing reasons. And you can be damned sure that the Republican Party is aware of this coincidence. And exploits it.

Blackstone

Nov 21 2005, 04:18 AM

QUOTE(Wertz @ Nov 20 2005, 07:35 PM)

Of course it is possible to oppose affirmative action for reasons other than "I don't want to work alongside blacks" or "I don't want to have to hire blacks" (though, frankly, I don't find many of them convincing).

For example, reasons such as "I want to be able to hire the people who in my judgment are the best qualified for the job, without a government agent looking over my shoulder and second-guessing my choices"? You're really don't find it convincing that that may be an honest reaction that many employers have to these laws?

QUOTE

But you must also bear in mind that while you may be opposed to desegregation or affirmative action for the purest of small government reasons, there are many - many, many - for whom affirmative action still means "unqualified blacks taking my job", for whom integration still means "forcing my kids to mingle with coloreds"

Or is it that they don't like the idea of their jobs going to unqualified people at all, or that they don't want their kids exposed to the habits and attitudes of inner-city kids (a not inconsiderable number of whom are white)?

Now you may not approve of these views, but that fact is not enough to condemn them as racist. Whether or not this is something that you do consciously, the fact remains that the "racist" epithet is something that's very often used as a way of silencing debate on a subject. Those who instinctively reach for it need to examine the share of the blame that they themselves might bear for the continued uneasy state of race relations in this country.

Wertz

Nov 21 2005, 10:14 AM

QUOTE(Blackstone @ Nov 20 2005, 11:18 PM)

QUOTE(Wertz @ Nov 20 2005, 07:35 PM)

Of course it is possible to oppose affirmative action for reasons other than "I don't want to work alongside blacks" or "I don't want to have to hire blacks" (though, frankly, I don't find many of them convincing).

For example, reasons such as "I want to be able to hire the people who in my judgment are the best qualified for the job, without a government agent looking over my shoulder and second-guessing my choices"? You're really don't find it convincing that that may be an honest reaction that many employers have to these laws?

QUOTE

But you must also bear in mind that while you may be opposed to desegregation or affirmative action for the purest of small government reasons, there are many - many, many - for whom affirmative action still means "unqualified blacks taking my job", for whom integration still means "forcing my kids to mingle with coloreds"

Or is it that they don't like the idea of their jobs going to unqualified people at all, or that they don't want their kids exposed to the habits and attitudes of inner-city kids (a not inconsiderable number of whom are white)?

Now you may not approve of these views, but that fact is not enough to condemn them as racist. Whether or not this is something that you do consciously, the fact remains that the "racist" epithet is something that's very often used as a way of silencing debate on a subject. Those who instinctively reach for it need to examine the share of the blame that they themselves might bear for the continued uneasy state of race relations in this country.

This is the stuff of another debate. For the record, though, affirmative action does not preclude hiring "the best qualified for the job" - and never has. Nor does it demand any jobs "going to unqualified people" - and never has. Those who instinctively reach for such fallacies in opposing affirmative action should, perhaps, examine their own position on race relations in this country. Feel free to start yet another debate on affirmative action, but most of this has been addressed in this thread - especially in kmsouthern's response here. But, no, I don't find your arguments against affirmative action, based as they are on myths, convincing in the least.

A discussion of busing also has the makings of a new thread - and I don't recall it being previously debated here in much depth. Again, feel free to start a new discussion. I will say, though, that the bulk of opposition to desegregation did not come from urban areas where the bugaboo of "inner city habits and attitudes" would even be a factor. It came from rural areas, from "the heartland". It was an opposition in principal to the very notion of integration itself.

We now return you to Bush support from white males...

AuthorMusician

Nov 21 2005, 11:38 AM

1. Where did the support for the Republican party start in white male America?

I'll go with the take that the 1960s started this thing, where the term WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) became part of the vernacular. Anybody remember the cowboy/hippie split? The construction worker/yuppie thing? So now we have the conservative/liberal split, which encompasses more groups on either side, except for the attempt at identifying the Nascar Dad, somewhat like the Soccer Mom. The mantra 9/11 worked for quite a while. Now what?

Both parties try to appeal to the most people, and that wins elections if party loyalty is the only big deal. Appealing to white males heads toward a majority, but the downside is to alienate white females, or females in general, and minorities. Hard to have it both ways, isn't it?

2. How much of the sentiment is based purely on rhetoric as opposed to truth? How much is imbedded in actual history?

The Republican party has its share of political noise, as does every party. Some people are attracted to the noise, the wishful thinking like small government. Well, no, it's still big government, just focused on different things. The tax breaks have to be attractive, but since they only go to a small portion of the population, it becomes wishful thinking again.

3. If the media, pop culture, or cultural differences unite Republicans with white male majorities, what can break that union? (Realistically, we're not talking about music, clothing, or other rhetorical rants...)

How about what’s going on right now? An arrogant administration that can’t tell the truth or admit to a mistake gets old pretty darn quick, although it takes some what seems like forever to figure out that the fish stinks.

4. Is the support for Mr. Bush, and the current administration, a manifestation of the white male community's support for the GOP?

What support? The lake is drying up and the fish left behind are gasping for oxygenated water, but all they get is mouth full of muck. Locally, the Repubs have split and are heading toward rocky times. Speaking of times, they are a-changing. What we assumed just a few years ago does not hold any longer.

A little side comment on racists and the Repubs: I don’t buy it that racists go running to the Repubs any longer either. That’s part of the split, but the bigger influence (from what I see) is the religious right pulling the party apart. I think we’re about to witness political mitosis.

Google

Sponsored Links

Blackstone

Nov 21 2005, 05:29 PM

QUOTE(Wertz @ Nov 21 2005, 05:14 AM)

This is the stuff of another debate.

It's a little late for you to be saying that. You can't just say that such-and-such a position is indicative of racism and then object when someone stands up to defend it. Even if the concerns about affirmative action are largely unfounded (something I'm far from conceding), then even that would only prove lack of understanding of the issue, not racism. To make accusations of racism without giving any honest consideration to alternative explanations, is indicative of a very illiberal closed-mindedness, and it absolutely does not help improve race relations in this country. However many people you say are motivated by racism in their views of the subject, many many others - I would say the majority - are not motivated by racism. Calling them racist, therefore, will not make them inclined to even give you the time of day.

QUOTE

Those who instinctively reach for such fallacies in opposing affirmative action should, perhaps, examine their own position on race relations in this country.

Perhaps, but those who merely raise them as possible, and plausible, explanations for why people might be opposed to these policies, as a way of countering instinctive accusations of racism, are not contributing to the problem. They're trying instead to open a reasonable dialogue.

QUOTE

I will say, though, that the bulk of opposition to desegregation did not come from urban areas where the bugaboo of "inner city habits and attitudes" would even be a factor. It came from rural areas, from "the heartland". It was an opposition in principal to the very notion of integration itself.

Hopefully you're not conflating two very different things. There's desegregation by means of removing laws mandating segregation, and then there's forced integration. One conforms to the principles of freedom of association, the other does not. And opposition to the first type of desegregation can pretty much only be explained by racist attitudes. Opposition to the second, on the other hand, can have many plausible explanations other than that.

Wertz

Nov 21 2005, 07:10 PM

QUOTE(Blackstone @ Nov 21 2005, 12:29 PM)

QUOTE(Wertz @ Nov 21 2005, 05:14 AM)

This is the stuff of another debate.

It's a little late for you to be saying that. You can't just say that such-and-such a position is indicative of racism and then object when someone stands up to defend it.

I'm not objecting to your defense of anything - just trying to keep this thread from straying too far from the topic. New threads arise from existing threads all the time and there is nothing wrong with continuing a debate elsewhere. Indeed, this thread arose form another thread itself.

QUOTE(Blackstone @ Nov 21 2005, 12:29 PM)

To make accusations of racism without giving any honest consideration to alternative explanations, is indicative of a very illiberal closed-mindedness, and it absolutely does not help improve race relations in this country.

I have given honest consideration to alternative explanations (see, for example, the thread mentioned above). And, further, I have allowed throughout that not all (perhaps not even that many) Republicans, conservatives, opponents to affirmative action and desegregation, etc. are racist, but that - and this is my main point - almost all racists are opposed to affirmative action, are opposed to desegregation of schools, are conservative, and are Republican. And it is because of the Republican Party's position on issues such as affirmative action - whatever their reasoning.

QUOTE(Blackstone @ Nov 21 2005, 12:29 PM)

There's desegregation by means of removing laws mandating segregation, and then there's forced integration. One conforms to the principles of freedom of association, the other does not. And opposition to the first type of desegregation can pretty much only be explained by racist attitudes. Opposition to the second, on the other hand, can have many plausible explanations other than that.

I agree. One more time: Opposing either desegregation in general or forced integration as a means does not, de facto, make one a racist. But being a racist does tend to mean one will oppose both desegregation in general and whatever means are employed to effect it. Since at least the sixties, the positions of the GOP have been more in line with the positions of most racists. Hence their affinity for that party.

I am not trying to make blanket generalizations about Republicans or conservative positions. But I am identifying some positions that are common to a vast majority of white bigots. And I am suggesting that the Republican Party is well aware of those positions, that it needs the support of such people to maintain its share of the electorate, that it holds many of the same positions (for, perhaps, different reasons), and that it does, however subtly, court that vote.

KivrotHaTaavah

Nov 22 2005, 05:40 AM

Wertz:

White supremacists don't like Bush. They call him [and me], Jew-loving Zionist race traitor[s] [maybe I should modify my nic to read KivrotHaTaavah aka Jew-loving Zionist race traitor]. But if you doubt the premise, please visit the Stormfront website. Or you can instead consider this [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45988]:

"Members of Stormfront.org are tossing their figurative hoods into the mix, as they invite supporters to come to Camp Casey to "let the world know that white patriots were first and loudest to protest this war for Israel."***"We want to challenge these leftists with the fact that their leftist leaders, like Hillary Clinton, are on the same war-for-Israel team as the cowardly Republicans who have been bought and paid for in the Senate, House, White House and media by the Jewish Neocon political machine.""

Sorry, let me interrupt, as it seems that David Duke is espousing the Democrat party line, and that's a point that I wanted to make before the proof:

"In an online column, Duke gives a host of reasons why he believes Cindy Sheehan is right to oppose the conflict in Iraq, among them:

There were no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear program, no uranium from Niger, no links with al-Qaida, no imminent threat to the American people;

if Americans were sent to die for democracy or justice in all the countries of the world we deem unjust or undemocratic, then we must be ready to send millions of our sons and daughters to war all over the globe;

the war is massively increasing hatred and terrorism. For every one terrorist killed in Iraq, we are creating thousands more who hate and want to hurt America and Americans; and

it has secured us no new or cheaper oil, it has cost a national treasure of hundreds of billions of dollars, it has alienated friends and allies, it has hurt American business around the world..."

And from the Washington Times, courtesy of Michelle Malkin [http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003823.htm]:

"Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.

Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log.

Operatives for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also obtained a copy of his credit report -- the only Republican candidate so targeted.

But black Democrats say there is nothing wrong with "pointing out the obvious.""

And from our friends at Little Green Footballs [http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=13656]:

"An unrepentant Sly explained why he called the nominee to be secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, an “Aunt Jemima” and outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powell an “Uncle Tom” on the radio Wednesday.***Being subservient and being a black role model are two different things. I think (Rice) has not only been bad for the country and for national security, but I think she’s been a bad black role model.

“I don’t think being subservient to white people and not blowing the whistle on their misdoings is a good role model at all.”***“I did call her the Aunt Jemima of the administration because I think not only have they used her race as a trophy, but I think her price of admission to the White House has been complete obedience to the white power structure in the White House,” Sylvester said. “(And) I called (Powell) Uncle Tom. Frankly I think they bought his silence.”"

I suppose that more than a few non-whites, male or otherwise, don't have a problem with Sly getting to define, once and for all, just what it means to be "black", but that is their sin and not mine. And in defense of white male racists, at least they only advocate a chattel slavery for blacks, and never mind their minds, while Sly & Co. seemingly advocate a rather totalitarian version of slavery, wherein masta' not only controls the body but what one gets to think as well. And, no, not all racists are white, conservative Republicans, and witness Sly and our Oreo cookie throwing friends.

Sorry, two more. We want to hang on to these people? Please speak with David Duke and ask him to show you the reproval he received from the GOP. And maybe you should speak with this fellow leftist as well:

Lastly, re affirmative action, please read Richard Sander re affirmative action at law schools [http://www.equaljusticesociety.org/press_2004_dec_calbarjournal.html], and if an end to discrimation is your cup of tea:

I'll be waiting to read your lambasting letter to the Dean of Admissions at Harvard.

Wertz

Nov 22 2005, 06:52 AM

KivrotHaTaavah: I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make, if any. Some white supremacists may not like George W Bush, but that hardly means that they are now all voting for liberal Democratics - and David Duke is hardly representative of your common or garden variety of white bigot.

The amount of criticism that many black Republicans receive is just further evidence that the general public perception - among people of all races - is that the GOP does not represent the best interests of African Americans. It's similar to the type of criticism that Log Cabin Republicans get from the gay community, where again the perception is clearly that the GOP does not represent the best interests of gay men and lesbians.

I am not saying that these perceptions are necessarily correct, though a case can be made for both perceptions if one judges the party solely on the basis of its platform. Now, you may feel that opposition to gay marriage and the advocacy of a Constitutional amendment defining marriage on the basis of gender, for example, is in the best interests of the gay community, just as you may argue that an abolition of affirmative action is in the best interests of the black community. But most gays and most blacks would disagree, just as most white bigots would agree. I am not saying that they are necessarily right or wrong, just that the Republican Party knows which voters tend to fall on which side of those issues and exploits that knowledge to secure a constituency.

Also, for the record, I never said or even implied that racism was the exclusive domain of Caucasians. This thread, however, is about white men, so that's what I've been addressing.

aevans176

Nov 22 2005, 02:55 PM

QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf @ Nov 19 2005, 12:55 AM)

Any resemblance between this topic and any other topic is purely intentional.

1. Where did the support for the Republican party start in white male America?

2. How much of the sentiment is based purely on rhetoric as opposed to truth? How much is imbedded in actual history?

3. If the media, pop culture, or cultural differences unite Republicans with white male majorities, what can break that union? (Realistically, we're not talking about music, clothing, or other rhetorical rants...)

4. Is the support for Mr. Bush, and the current administration, a manifestation of the white male community's support for the GOP?

Funny... I haven't been online in a couple of days and I'm still ruffling feathers...

The Republican party began basically with Lincoln, and hence it's origins in white male America. It's current support from "white male America" is predominantly rooted in socio-economic/need based coorelation, coupled with cultural differences and marketing schemes of the opposing parties.

The vast majority of US politics is based in rhetoric as opposed to factual reality. Many fans of this administration are truly neither conservatives nor republicans, which is disconcerting in itself. I would imagine that on both sides of the party line that there is a large amount of confusion and misunderstanding. The party division, in my opinion, has little to do with the truth and more to do with emotion. It seems that heated arguments often begin and end with the words "Bush or Clinton"...

The truth about white-male disenfranchisment with the DNC may be rooted in the perception of race baiting, minority pandering, and their inability to align themselves with moderates in the US. The DNC has also fallen away from middle class America (where many male conservatives reside) in their support of key subjects such as Gay Marraige, Abortion, etc (which happen to be two of the key issues of late). These issues often are tantamount in reference to voting for conservative America, and hence, why you often find "white males" voting for the GOP (to play into the question's hands...)

In addition, the support for George Bush is waning, even in white male/conservative circles. This has numerous and very valid points in itself, and could become a thread alone.

The support for the GOP among middle-class Americans makes perfect sense. We'd like to see a revision of the tax code to include a flat tax, see the end of affirmative action in its current form, avoid gay marraige, see more stringent (if not abolishment) of abortion, etc. It just so happens that the middle-class voting base in America tends to include a large number of white males.

The point I attempted to make in reference to the black vote (on the previous thread) is that there is probably a large component of the minority community that shares similar values with their caucasian counter-parts, that have little understanding of the true history of the DNC, and that may align themselves more with a more conservative leader...

Jack22

Nov 22 2005, 06:31 PM

1. Where did the support for the Republican party start in white male America?

The Republican party was forged primarily by white men from an alliance of the Liberty Party, the Free Soil Party, other anti-slavery movements, some former Whigs and some anti-slavery former Democrats. The strategies to abolish slavery ranged from immediate abolition to phasing out slavery gradually. In the election of 1860, the Republicans nominated Lincoln as a compromise candidate. The Democrats were unaware that Lincoln posed a threat, so in the aftermath of the dissolution of the Whig Party, the Democrats nominated three candidates for president, assuming that the next President would be a Democrat, and the top two finishers would result in a natural restoration of the two party system.

What happened was a statistical aberration-- Lincoln managed only about a third of the popular vote, with single-digit support in the south, but with enough support in the north to secure a large number of electoral votes and a victory, because the two thirds of the populace who voted against Lincoln split their support among three Democrats. Lincoln's election shocked everyone. This strange quirk of the 70-year-old Constitution's Electoral College was a huge motivating factor for Democrats in the South to vote to restore the Articles of Confederation and to deny the legitimacy of Lincoln's government.

2. How much of the sentiment is based purely on rhetoric as opposed to truth? How much is imbedded in actual history?

Historically, a larger proportion of Congressional Republicans than Democrats supported abolishing slavery and the various Civil Rights Acts, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The previous sentence is accurately worded, but to be clear, there were more Democrats than Republicans in Congress at the time, so in raw numbers, more Democrats than Republicans supported the CRA-- it's just that the percentage of Republicans supporting the CRA was larger than the percentage of Democrats supporting it.

Some will write off these problems as "Dixiecrat" aberrations. However, LBJ was a Dixicrat if there ever was one (a matter of debate, for sure), and he is given credit for making the Civil Rights Act happen. If you're a died-in-the-wool Democrat, just don't listen to LBJ's tapes on the subject, and you can remain blissfully unaware of his ulterior motives.

I can't speak for the KKK in other states like David Duke's Louisiana, but having relatives in the heart of KKK country in East Texas, I can tell you for certain that the Texas KKK remains to this day a 100% bloc vote for Democrats, primarily because they DID listen to LBJ's tapes, and are rather gleeful about other races participating in the master plan to "restore white supremacy," as their evil little minds think of it. Whether or not the joke is on them is anyone's guess, as the Democrat party is also primarily populated by white men.

3. If the media, pop culture, or cultural differences unite Republicans with white male majorities, what can break that union? (Realistically, we're not talking about music, clothing, or other rhetorical rants...)

Actually, what has always united white males in the Republican Party has been the notion that "all men are created equal," quoted prominently from the Declaration of Independence by Lincoln at Gettysburg. The desire has been to encourage treating everyone as equals and to give everyone an equal (or equitable) opportunity to succeed. The Democrats tend to assert that equality isn't enough, that white folk must continue to be punished for the sins of their great-great-great-grandfathers, or that non-whites still need some kind of so-called "affirmative action" to compete with whites, even though the vast majority of poor people are white, too.

A majority of white males support the Republican party, and a majority of the members of the Democrat party are also white males (though a somewhat smaller majority than the Republican Party). I can see why a Democrat would, therefore, be interested in enticing more white males away from the Republican party. If the Democrats really were serious about that they would not work so hard at offending as many white males as possible by using words like "redneck" in a derisive manner, by stopping the insane rhetoric that whites who vote Republican must somehow be racist, and that men who vote Republican must be chauvinist. Name-calling doesn't tend to win too many converts. Instead, Democrats who are serious about attracting more white males should try to vocalize a positive vision that is so good it need never be compared to the Republican vision. Take a cue from Reagan, who attracted a lot of white male Democrats to the Republican party by talking about America as a shining city on a hill, a positive vision with no need to resort to bashing the opponent. Take a cue from MLK, whose "I have a dream" speech helped motivate widespread support of Civil Rights legislation among white male Republicans. Retire or marginalize the crazy-sounding national leaders like Howard Dean, Chappaquiddick Ted, and Klansman Byrd.

4. Is the support for Mr. Bush, and the current administration, a manifestation of the white male community's support for the GOP?

Probably not GOP, but GOD. The vast majority of the white population believes in God, and many of them interpret the actions of Democrats and liberals as being anti-God. Whether they are right or wrong about the existence of God is really immaterial. The point is that most of them believe it, and that the conservatives among them who listen to talk radio are going to have an easy time believing that any platform promoting gay marriage, keeping Roe v. Wade, abolishing prayer in public school, abolishing the national motto, etc., are part of an anti-God agenda.

Many Democrats know this and have been struggling valiantly to change course since the last election showed "moral values" as the primary reason people voted for Bush instead of Kerry in 2004. In my own opinion, all attempts to invoke God to support homosexuality, abortion, anti-prayer, etc., are doomed to fail in the face of much uproarious laughter, so the only way for the Democrats to make serious inroads in white male America would be to reject the whol liberal platform in favor of libertarianism. Now, the end result might be very similar, but the reasoning would be different. Libertarian logic, when not accompanied by irrational liberal emotionalism, tends to play really well among white men. Reagan voiced a lot of libertarian rhetoric, and it attracted white male votes in droves, from Democrats and Republicans alike.

Libertarian ideology is neither exclusively conservative nor liberal. It would, however, require a significant change in course for the Democratic party, although perhaps not on the core issues. Libertarianism demands smaller government, lower taxes, and privatization of just about all services that the private sector can provide more efficiently than government, with the government stepping in only as a last resort when private services fail, or to prevent them from failing. If social liberals (as opposed to economic socialists) could just see that the same social goals can be achieved through private industry as through government, then the major work of transitioning from a liberal to libertarian platform would have been achieved.

The reason why I don't hold out too much hope for libertarianism in the Democrat party is that libertarianism is diametrically opposed to economic socialism and communism, which compose a sizeable voting bloc in the party. To a good Marxist, economic libertarianism (privatization of industry) is even worse than Republican-style big-government conservatism. The extreme elements of the Democrat party prevent it from appealing to libertarian ideals, because they insist (or so it appears to many white males) on asserting both an almost fascist anti-God agenda and a laughable brand of fiscal responsibility (a.k.a. spend like there's no tomorrow while raising taxes as high as necessary to foot the bill).

Of course, my take on why white males side with GOP is probably tainted. As a latino, many non-whites consider me white, and many whites consider me non-white. My city has been primarily latino long before Texas was a state, and that hasn't changed. I've witnessed racism about equally from people of all races, so if I were the kind to overgeneralize, I'd say everyone's a racist. But I know better. Most people are not racist, and more to the point, most white males are not racist.

If the intent of these questions were to ask how to get racists away from the Republican party, I would have to say racists are not a group anyone would want to attract, because they'll do you far more harm than good. The following is not sound reasoning: David Duke is a racist, he likes the Republican party, therefore the white males in the Republican party must be sympathetic to racists. No, if you will recall, the Republican Party tried as hard as it could to kick Duke out as soon as his racist views materialized. Other famous segregationists and white supremacists in both parties have been able to retain party support by distancing themselves from their racist pasts, notably Sen. Strom Thurmond ® and Sen. Robert Byrd (D).

If there really are more racists in a party you oppose, let them stay there and be an albatross around the other party's neck. Nobody wants to associate with racists. And lose the presumption that one party's supporters are more racist than the other's, or that one party is glad that it's got more racists than the other. Racists don't do anybody any good politically, but Democrats have been able to make political bank in some constituencies by pinning the racism boogey-man on Republicans.

No matter what party you're in, anyone who honestly wants to win converts from an opposing party should begin by seeing them as they are, not as the propaganda machine in one party or the other tells you they are. Yes, most parties paint a distorted view of the members of the other parties. That may come as a newsflash to some, but it's politics 101.

For the record, if the Democrat party were to give a serious go at libertarianism and take the aggressive liberal extremism out of the platform, I'd join up. The Reagan Presidency and the Gingrich Congress seemed to be open to libertarianism, but over the course of the Bush Presidency and the Hastert Congress, it seems the Republican flirtation with libertarianism is all but dead.

Bikerdad

Dec 3 2005, 04:36 AM

[quote - Wertz]almost all racists are opposed to affirmative action, are opposed to desegregation of schools, are conservative, and are Republican.[/quote]

[quote]But you must also bear in mind that while you may be opposed to desegregation or affirmative action for the purest of small government reasons, there are many - many, many - for whom affirmative action still means "unqualified blacks taking my job", for whom integration still means "forcing my kids to mingle with coloreds" - for whom, in short, these issues are a matter of racism. [/quote]

Wertz, I expect that we will both agree that the overwhelming majority of Republicans oppose affirmative action and forced integration (which you choose to characterize as desegregation), and of course, are Republicans. You have also demonstrated little tendency to mispeak. As a result, I'm quite puzzled by the rhetorical contradiction between your continued protestations that you don't believe the majority of white male Republicans to be racists, and your use of such an abundance of "many"s. "Some" is what is typically used to indicate a small minority, not a trio of "many". Those scrupulously seeking to avoid any appearance of majoritarianism in such matters of quantification might even go so far as to say "a sizeable (or substantial) minority." I am sure that you're aware that many - many, many readers will translate your rhetoric as "most." In short, will consider your position as accusing most Republicans (or at least white male Republicans) of being racists. That may not be your intention, but to be frank with you, I am skeptical.

[quote - Julian]Spin does seem to work best on white males, it's true - they are the most likely to say things like "I don't do / have time for nuance" [/quote] Out of a spirit of chivalry, I'll extend the most charitable intepretation, rather than taking your statement as a blanket charge that white males are stupid. After all, it couldn't possibly be that the millions of white males who have been consistently voting for the GOP could be doing so out of reasoned self-interest. No, its simply that as a result of their pigmentation and sex they are "more susceptible to spin."

You gents, and any readers, should carefully consider what's been written here. Bush and the GOP do better with white males because they don't reflexively and without cease insult them, whether deliberately or inadvertently.

kalabus

Dec 3 2005, 05:21 AM

I do not think the modern republican party is racist although I suspect southern elements still have racists beliefs and ideology that they mask with other issues.

The confederate flag bit, The refusal of alot of southern senators to sign an apology for congress refusing to pass anti-lynching laws, Alabama in election 04 refusing to strike certain Jim Crow laws from their constitution, David Duke getting high percentages in Louisianna races, Trent Lott representative Baker from LA etc etc.

I saw a poll in recent years that suggested that less then 5% of this nation support segregation though. Cannot quote what progarm I heard it on though. Cannot remember.

I alos believe that most republican's oppose affirmative action for legit and not racial reason's. I disagree with those reasons but I do not think the majority of their argument's are based on racial persecution.

Also I think alot of American politic's is more geographically based.

Like the 1964 Civil Right's act. The south was still democrat and democratic southernors respecting their constituency voted against integration.

If you look at how Northern Democrat's voted against Northern Republicans the totals are in the House 145 northern Democrats votes for integration 9 voted against. 138 Northern Republican's voted for integration and 24 voted against.

In the Senate 46 Northern democrats voted for integration and only 1 did not. Northenr Republican's were 27 for and 5 against.

The south is were the democrats supported segregation because the Democrat to Republican schism was in process and not yet complete

In the House. Southern Democrats voted 7 for integration and 87 against integration. Southern house republican's 0 for integration and 10 against. This shows just how racist the south was in the 60's and shows just how much of a minority the republican party was and what people (pro-segregation southernors) who would soon become their base in the greater Goldwater movement.

In the Senate. 1 southern democrat voted for integration and 27 against. The republican party at this time only had 1 southern senator and he of course voted against integration.

The south has always had greater inclination's toward's racism and in the 60's the party that pushed their agenda happened to switch.

The south has grown up alot in those years but is still the region most infected by racism I bet.

Julian

Dec 3 2005, 12:54 PM

QUOTE(Bikerdad)

QUOTE(me)

Spin does seem to work best on white males, it's true - they are the most likely to say things like "I don't do / have time for nuance"

Out of a spirit of chivalry, I'll extend the most charitable intepretation, rather than taking your statement as a blanket charge that white males are stupid. After all, it couldn't possibly be that the millions of white males who have been consistently voting for the GOP could be doing so out of reasoned self-interest. No, its simply that as a result of their pigmentation and sex they are "more susceptible to spin."

You gents, and any readers, should carefully consider what's been written here. Bush and the GOP do better with white males because they don't reflexively and without cease insult them, whether deliberately or inadvertently.

Speaking as a white male myself, this isn't quite what I meant. All I was saying is that political spin is widely used because it works on the minority of the public that are politically-engaged. A majority of those people are white males.

Nor do I think that your interpretation that political spin only works on the stupid is especially charitable, to me or to anyone else. I think this is very far from the case - spin works best on smart people, because they are concentrating on the logical arguments being made on the surface and aren't considering the sleight-of-hand.

Any stage hypnotist or sideshow conjurer will tell you that they can fool smart people much more often than they can fool stupid people, not least because nobody is as smart as they think they are - except stupid people, who are told their whole lives how stupid they are, so have no self-deceptions to be manipulated.

My cynicism was much less directed at "stupid white men" (if such people exist in this context, I must be one of them, because I pay attention to party politics) than at the political class which consistently chooses spin over substantive argument.

They only do this because they(the politicians and their media handlers) think we (the wider electorate, not just the politically-engaged minority) are too stupid and have too short an attention-span to follow their argument. Wrongly, in my opinion - they are too stupid to have found an effective way to engage us.

Or - more often, they are too cynical to want to even try reasoned argument, because they know we (the politically engaged minority) are too smart to follow their argument and arrive at the same conclusions they do. Rightly, in my opinion.

This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.